On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:56:16 +0100 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Tell me rysiek. How does your government or any government operate.
What happens to people who don't obey your government. Show some decency and intellectual honesty and give a concise, honest answer.
They get fined, jailed, or (worst case scenario) killed. Your point?
That is exactly my point and you know it. That is the *theory* and *practice* of government. Now where do you, a statist and apologist of 'good' government stand with respect to the crimes that enable the very existence of your government? Further point : the theory of government is radically different from the theory of *voluntary interaction* and the 'free market' or 'civil society' if you prefer. In *theory and practice* the government is nothing but the bigest, sicket criminal organization.
While you ponder this, here are some questions that I have asked you in the previous e-mail, for your consideration:
(regarding private companies getting licence plate data)
Do you see no potential problems/dangers
Yes I do. Then again, I never said the private sector is perfect. That's a position you pretentd that I hold because the only way for you to 'win' the argument is by arguing against something I never said nor I would ever say.
in private sector having such huge databases of who was moving where, when?
(regarding governments doing bad shit and then giving the orphans candy)
Does that mean that orphans should not take the government's candy?
Does that mean that orphans that *do* take that candy are "sellouts" and are to be ostracized or considered akin to government agents?
The orphans do have a legitimate claim against your government psychos. But *victims* of government claiming restitution have nothing to do with *government employees* pretending to 'fight' government from the inside. Like your beloved tor mafiosos for instance. Those assholes certainly are pentagon sellouts and state agents (by defintion - they are paid by the state).
(regarding mafioso being killed by mafia he's a member of)
My question is: does the sheer fact of being killed by the organisation the mafioso was a *voluntary* member of, without him knowing that he's going to be killed, change his "membership status" from voluntary to non-voluntary?
That is irrelevant bullshit. And I already answered it anyway. At least partly because you keep chaging the 'scenario'. If you can clearly make whatever point you are trying to make, go ahead, make it, and I'll reply to it. I'm not wasting time with contrived 'edge cases'.
(regarding civil society)
So, what's *your* definition* of "civil society", then?
I already gave in a previous message. Now it's clear that you don't read my replies. As to the rest of your 'questions' they are of course the same evasive bullshit as before. You can keep playing dumb forever while accusing me of not explaining well the basics of anarchist theory. Funny because you also pretend to be an expert on political theory PLUS, you are posting in a FUCKING CRYPTO ANARCHIST mailing list.
(regarding Greenpeace and WWF)
- could you define "coercive aims"? - are Greenpeace and WWF civil society organisations, or not?
(regarding "militant society" as opposed to "civil society")
Could you define "militant society" and perhaps draw the line between the two?
(regarding the definition of "civil society")
Wait, does your definition of "civil society" *require* an organisation to be a "libertarian voluntarist" one? And what would that mean?
(regarding possibility of corrupt private companies)
So we can have private companies that are corrupt?
Can they be corrupt without government's help?
(regarding governments being "bad")
Why just governments? What makes Teh Gummint so different from mafia on one hand, and a huge multinational corporation with their own armed security force and/or an effective way of coercing governments to do their bidding on the other?
(regarding projects taking government money)
Before we dive into this rabbit hole, do I understand correctly that above you just agreed that:
1. in and of itself the fact that a project (say, Tor) takes government money, does not *automagically* mean that the project is corrupt/coercive/in bed/etc?
2. that it is *possible* that such a project (not necessarily Tor; some hypothetical project) can have good outcome *despite* taking money from the government?
(regarding "power always bad, needs to be checked, regardless of who has it)
Fine. Sort of...
Elaborate on the "sort of" please.
(regarding the government being the "by far worst problem)
But you do agree it is not the *only* problem?
(regarding government propaganda)
What about focusing on things that are not as bad as the government, but *not* denying that government is a big problem?
(regarding "government has to go")
What, in your view, would happen once Teh Gummint is gone, then?